Tuesday, 1 March 2016

International Laws & Domestic Laws Must Be Enforced & All Human Life Protected

The bottom line is that
international laws and domestic laws must be enforced and those guilty of war
crimes, whatever their position or power, must be charged and brought to
justice under the charges of; crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, human
rights abuses, rendition and complicity in torture, genocide, war crimes and
murder.

July 2017; Lord Chief Justice has said that he is of the opinion that there is no
chance of arresting & charging Tony Blair for war crimes.

This does seem to be in keeping with the rule of law, both domestic
and international.

Domestic law (offences against person Act 1861) and International law (Nuremberg Principles, Rome Statute, Geneva Convention) make it perfectly clear
that none shall be above the law, including the law makers, governments and
heads of state.

Tony Blair along with other MP's have taken the UK into successive
unlawful wars against other sovereign states, in doing so they have consistently
committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, infanticide and genocide.

If the law is not enforced, then there is no law, it is imperative
as a country that we represent and make sure that all those in government, both
present and past are brought to book and the rule of law.

You are urged to enlighten yourself with the facts.

Here is the staring point

The law is absolutely clear.

Facts matter

Weapons
of mass deception

How
UK Governments deceive HM Forces over the legality of war.

“War is essentially an evil thing.Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but
affect the whole world.To initiate a
war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the
supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

The British Government’s
legal justification for the war with Libya was the same as that for Iraq and
Afghanistan – that military action is
lawful and authorised by Resolutions of the UN Security Council operating under
Chapter VII of the UN Charter.This
is wrong.The threat or use of force is
always illegal and is prohibited in international and domestic law.

By comparing Government
claims of legality against the requirements and prohibitions of the laws of war
it is clear that the wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all illegal and
that the Attorney General’s legal advice on the legality of war is false and
deceptive.

In March 2011 the UK
Government argued that the attack on Libya by British and NATO forces was lawful:In its legal advice to Parliament it stated:

“The Attorney
General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this
Chapter VII authorisation to use all
necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment
of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives”.[1]

To
establish whether the deployment of forces and the use of armed force in Libya
Afghanistan and Iraq is lawful we must refer to the UN Charter and to UN
General Assembly Resolution 2625; the Charter sets down the law, and Resolution
2625 explains how to interpret it.

The UN Charter

The
United Nations is an organization of 193 independent nation states which have promised
on behalf of their people to work together to maintain international peace and
security and to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.The UN Charter lays down the binding terms of
this agreement in 111 Articles.

2.3 All members
shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

2.4 All members
shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in
any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

41. The Security
Council may decide what measures not
involving the use of armed force[2] are to be
employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of
the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal,
telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of
diplomatic relations.

42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in
Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take
such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or
restore international peace and security. Such action may include
demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of
Members of the United Nations.

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625

In the 1960s the United Nations, concerned that States
were misinterpreting the UN Charter, asked the International Law Commission to
tighten the rules so that all States would be clear on their meaning. In 1970 this work came to fruition when the
UN General Assembly agreed and published in UNGA Resolution 2625 the Principles to be used in interpreting the Charter.

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
CONCERNING

FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Amongst
its many important principles are the following:

Every State
has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations.Such a threat or use of force
constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United
Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international
issues.

No State or
group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any
reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its
political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international
law.

The
principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute
basic principles of international law, and consequently [the General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their
international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the
strict observance of these principles.

Chris CoverdaleMaking Wars History

[1]Chapters VI and VII of the UN
Charter (articles 33 – 51) govern the operations of the UN Security Council.

Civilian losses

14 May: NATO air strike hit a large number of people
gathered for Friday prayers in the eastern city of Brega leaving 11 religious leaders dead and
50 others wounded.[180]

24 May: NATO air strikes in Tripoli kill 19 civilians and wound 150,
according to Libyan state television.[181]

31 May: Libya claims that NATO strikes have
left up to 718 civilians dead.[182]

19 June: NATO air strikes hit a residential house in
Tripoli,
killing seven civilians, according to Libyan state television.[183]

20 June: A NATO airstrike in Sorman, near Tripoli, killed fifteen
civilians, according to government officials.[184]
Eight rockets apparently hit the compound of a senior government official, in
an area where NATO confirmed operations had taken place.[184]

25 June: NATO strikes on Brega hit a bakery
and a restaurant, killing 15 civilians and wounding 20 more, Libyan state
television claimed. The report further accused the coalition of "crimes
against humanity". The claims were denied by NATO.[185]

28 June: NATO airstrike on the town of Tawergha,
300 km east of the Libyan capital, Tripoli kills
eight civilians.[186]

25 July: NATO airstrike on a medical clinic in Zliten kills 11
civilians, though the claim was denied by NATO, who said they hit a vehicle
depot and communications center.[187][188]

9 August: Libyan government claims 85 civilians were
killed in a NATO airsrike in Majer, a village near Zliten. A spokesman confirms
that NATO bombed Zliten at 2:34 a.m. on 9 August,[190]
but says he was unable to confirm the casualties. Commander of the NATO military
mission, Lieutenant GeneralCharles
Bouchard says "I cannot believe that 85 civilians were present when we
struck in the wee hours of the morning, and given our intelligence. But I
cannot assure you that there were none at all".[191]

15 September: Gaddafi spokesman Moussa Ibrahim
declares that NATO air strikes killed 354 civilians and wounded 700 others,
while 89 other civilians are supposedly missing. He also claims that over 2,000
civilians have been killed by NATO air strikes since 1 September.[192]
NATO denied the claims, saying they were unfounded.[193]

-----------------------------------

Day
1 – 19 March 2011

On the afternoon of 19 March, the Royal Navy Trafalgar-classsubmarineHMS Triumph[35]
fired Tomahawk cruise missiles.[36]
A combined total along with US over the day was reported by the US to be over
110 missiles.[37]
The Royal Navy also has a Type 22 frigate (HMS Cumberland) and a Type
23 frigate (HMS Westminster) engaged in a naval
blockade.David
Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, confirmed that British
aircraft were in action over Libya on the 19th,[38]
although it was the French Air Force who made the first coalition
aerial presence over Libya earlier the same day.
Sentry, Sentinel and VC-10 aircraft were said to be carrying out operations
from RAF
Akrotiri in Cyprus.[2]
The home base for the VC-10 aircraft was RAF
Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and for the Sentinel and Sentry aircraft was RAF
Waddington in Lincolnshire.
On the night of 19–20 March 2011, Storm
Shadow missiles were launched by Tornado GR4 aircraft.[39]
Tornados of No. 9 Squadron from RAF Marham
had sortied on a 3,000 mi (4,800 km) mission to fire Storm Shadow
missiles against targets in Libya.
They required refuelling by British tanker aircraft three times on the outward
journey and once on the return. 101 Sqn VC10 and 216 Sqn Tristar aircraft were
involved.[40]

Day
2 – 20 March 2011

The MoD announced that Tornado and Typhoon aircraft would be deployed to the
Italian Gioia del Colle Air Base.[2]
The Trafalgar-class submarineHMS Triumph launched further Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya.[2]
Tornados GR4s, flying from Marham, were on route to Libya but did
not fire their missiles due to information being received that suggested
civilians were in the target areas. The Tornado aircraft returned to RAF Marham
fully armed.[41]

Day
3 – 21 March 2011

The Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons on 21 March
at the start of the debate on the UNSC resolution that RAF Typhoons had been
deployed to an Italian airbase (Gioia del Colle) and would fly in support of
the NFZ.[42]
Three Typhoons successfully conducted a mission and returned to Gioia del
Colle.[43]
Headquarters 906 Expeditionary Air Wing formed at Gioia del Colle Air Base responsible for
assets forward deployed there. Headquarters 907 Expeditionary Air Wing formed
at RAF
Akrotiri responsible for assets forward deployed there. C-17A Globemaster and Hercules transport aircraft were also used
to assist in the build up of deployed forces.[10]

Day
4 – 22 March 2011

RAF Typhoons flew their first ever combat mission,[44]
patrolling the no-fly zone while Tornado GR4s from RAF Marham
flew an armed reconnaissance sortie. The MoD reported that Royal Navy ships Triumph,
Westminister and Cumberland
remained in theatre for additional strikes and patrol.[45]

Day
5 – 23 March 2011

Tornado GR4s were forwarded deployed to Gioia del Colle Air Base.[5]
In a media interview, the UK Air Component Commander, Air Vice-Marshal Greg
Bagwell, stated that the Libyan Air Force "no longer exists as a fighting
force" and that "we have the Libyan ground forces under constant
observation and we attack them whenever they threaten civilians or attack
population centres."[46]

Day
6 – 24 March 2011

Tomahawk Cruise Missiles were again fired at targets from HMS Triumph[47]
RAF Tornado aircraft on an armed reconnaissance mission launched Brimstone missiles against Libyan armoured
vehicles that were reported to be threatening the civilian population of
Adjdabiya. Four T-72
tanks were destroyed in the attack by Tornados, and three by another coalition
aircraft. Likely target locations had previously been identified by other
Tornado aircraft equipped with RAPTOR pods.[28]

Day
7 – 25 March 2011

RAF Tornado aircraft launched more Brimstone missile strikes, destroying
three armoured vehicles in Misrata and two further armoured vehicles in
Ajdabiya.[48]

Day
9 – 27 March 2011

Over the weekend, Tornados from Gioia del Colle launched numerous armed reconnaissance
missions, during the course of which ordnance released hit a total of 22 tanks,
armoured vehicles and artillery pieces in the vicinity of Ajdabiya and Misrata.[49]

Day
10 – 28 March 2011

Tornados from RAF Marham, supported by Tristar tankers from RAF Brize
Norton, launched Storm Shadow strikes against ammunition bunkers in the Sabha
area in the southern Libyan desert. The bunkers were reportedly used to
resupply Libyan Government troops attacking civilians in the north of the
country.[49]
The Type 42 Destroyer Liverpool was ordered to the Mediterranean to
relieve Type 22 frigate Cumberland.[50]

Day
11 – 29 March 2011

The London Conference on Libya
was chaired by the Foreign Secretary, William
Hague.
Two Tornados flying from Gioia del Colle engaged near Misrata a Libyan
armoured fighting vehicle and two artillery pieces with Brimstone
missiles.[51]

The number of Tornado aircraft taking part in Operation Ellamy was increased
from eight to twelve on 4 April, with the aircraft deployed from RAF Marham.[58]
RAF Tornados, engaged in two separate strikes in the Libyan city of Sirte, launched three
Brimstone missiles which destroyed one main battle tank and two surface-to-air
missile launchers.[57]

Day
22 – 9 April 2011

Seven tanks were destroyed by Tornado aircraft, two in Ajdabiya and five in
Misrata, using Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles.[59]

Day
23 – 10 April 2011

The MoD reported that over the weekend of 22–23 April, of 61 armoured
vehicles and air defence assets destroyed by NATO, 21 were destroyed by RAF
aircraft.[6]

Day
25 – 12 April 2011

HMS Turbulent was declared available
in theatre by the MoD for Tomahawk strikes should they be required.[6]
RAF Typhoon aircraft were used operationally in a ground attack role for the
first time. A Typhoon destroyed 2 main battle tanks near Misrata with Paveway
II whilst a Tornado destroyed the third with Paveway IV. In total, RAF aircraft
destroyed eight main battle tanks on 12 April. Since the start of Operation
ELLAMY up until 12 April, RAF aircraft had engaged over 100 main battle tanks,
artillery pieces, armoured vehicles and SAMs.[6]

Day
31–18 April 2011

RAF Tornados and Typhoons attacked a pair of multiple rocket launcher
vehicles and a light artillery piece reportedly firing on Misrata, as well as a
self-propelled gun and tank.[60]
HMS Triumph was reported by the MoD to have launched two salvoes of
Tomahawk missiles against command and control facilities alongside precision
strikes by RAF Tornados, Typhoons and coalition aircraft.[60]
The MoD's previous report that HMS Triumph had returned to Devonport
suggests the submarine involved was probably HMS Turbulent.[6][dubious– discuss]
HMS Liverpool intercepted the vessel MV Setubal Express
heading for Tripoli,
conducting a boarding party search with Royal
Marines and finding trucks of potential use to the Gaddafi
regime. The merchant vessel was ordered to divert to Salerno in Italy.[61]

Day
32 – 19 April 2011

The Foreign Secretary announced that a British Military Liaison Advisory Team
was to be sent to Benghazi
to advise the NTC on how to improve their military organisational structures,
communications and logistics.[62]

Day
43 – 30 April 2011

HMS Brocklesby destroyed a buoyant
mine containing over 100 kg of high explosive. Using her sonar and
underwater mine disposal system, Seafox, the mine was destroyed one mile from
the entrance to Misrata harbour, making the waters safe for aid ships to enter[63][64]

Day
49 – 6 May 2011

Tornados attacked a site south of Sirte based on analysis of intelligence by
RAF Tactical Imagery Wing. 20 FROG-7 launchers and a significant number of Scud
canisters were reported as either completely or partially destroyed. RAF aircraft
also destroyed one tank and two armoured vehicles in the area of Misrata and
one mobile rocket launcher south of Tripoli.[65]

Day
55 – 12 May 2011

An RAF Typhoon was reported to have destroyed two Palmaria 155mm howitzers
near Sirte.[66]
While engaged in surveillance operations off the coast of the rebel-held Libyan
city of Misrata,
HMS Liverpool came under fire from a shore battery, making her the first
Royal Navy warship to be deliberately targeted since the Falklands
War.[67]Liverpool had been tasked with other NATO warships, to intercept small,
high-speed inflatable craft spotted approaching the port of Misrata, the type
which had been used previously to lay mines in the Port of Misrata. Libyan
rocket artillery on the coast fired an inaccurate salvo of rockets at Liverpool. Liverpool returned fire with her
4.5 inch main gun, silencing the shore battery, in the Royal Navy's first use
of the weapon since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[68][68][69]

Day
59 – 16 May 2011

Royal Navy Tomahawk missiles reportedly fired from HMS Triumph, and
Paveway IV bombs released by RAF Tornado aircraft were reported to have struck
intelligence agency buildings and a training base used by Colonel Gaddafi's
Executive Protection Force. RN and RAF attacks were reported to have damaged or
destroyed over 300 targets since the start of Operation Ellamy.[66]

Day
62 – 19 May 2011

Tornado GR4s attacked two corvettes in Al Khums naval base and destroyed a facility in
the dockyard constructing fast inflatable boats which Libyan forces had
reportedly used to mine Misrata and attack vessels in the area.[70]

RAF aircraft attacked four armoured vehicles deployed near the Libyan city
of Zlitan. A
Tornado attacked a Libyan coastal radar station near Brega, which was destroyed
with a dual-mode seeker Brimstone missile.[71]

Day
68 – 25 May 2011

A vehicle depot at Tiji was attacked by a Typhoon FGR4 and a Tornado GR4
dropping four Enhanced Paveway II and five Paveway IV weapons between them.[71]

The Response Force Task Group withdrew from COUGAR 11 and was deployed (an
RFTG ship, HMS Ocean, and her embarked Apache attack helicopters had
been deployed days earlier) to supplement UK forces in Operation Ellamy.[74]

Day
102 - 28 June 2011

HMS Liverpool used her main gun to fire warning shots at pro-Gaddafi
maritime forces moving along Libya's
Mediterranean coast just west of the city of Misrata, amid concerns a threat was posed to
civilians due to recent repeated attempts to mine the harbour. After initially
ignoring the first shell, a further three were fired and the vessels were
forced to return to their port of departure.[75][76]

Day
107 - 3 August 2011

Several rockets were fired at HMS Liverpool. She returned fire with
her 4.5 inch main gun. The attack came after the ship had fired a barrage of
illumination rounds in support of an air attack on the stronghold of Zliten.[77]

Day
145 – 10 August 2011

RAF Tornados launched direct from RAF Marham in Norfolk to target command and control and air
defence targets with Stormshadow cruise missiles.[78]

Day
151 – 16 August 2011

Since the start of military operations on 19 March, Royal Air Force, Royal
Navy, and Army Air Corps precision strikes
were reported to have damaged or destroyed some 870 former regime targets.[79]
HMS Liverpool was involved in the most intense shore-bombardment of
the war. Liverpool had been tasked by a patrol aircraft to fire
illumination rounds over the city of Zlitan.
While conducting this mission, Liverpool
came under fire from a Loyalist shore-battery. Liverpool
responded by firing three rounds from her 4.5 inch gun, silencing the battery.
Later on the same day, a patrol aircraft spotted a large pro-Gaddafi vehicle
convoy carrying weapons and ammunition. Liverpool
fired 54 shells from her 4.5 inch gun at the convoy, destroying or severely
damaging many of the vehicles. During the ensuing chaos on the ground, NATO
aircraft destroyed the remainder of the convoy.[80]

UK/World citizens must demand and affect the arrest of
all whose unlawful actions have directly resulted in, genocide, war crimes,
crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and abuse of Human and Civil
rights.

This is not a political issue, it is one of law.

The treaty for the renunciation of war 1928 [Kellogg-Briand-Pact] prohibits
resort to war and requires that all disputes are settled peacefully.

The UN Charter 1945 prohibits the threat or use of force and
requires states to work together in conformity with the principles of justice
and international law to maintain peace.

The Nuremberg
War Crimes Trials 1946 upheld the principle that waging aggressive is a war crime and that
individuals rather than states can be held to account in a court for war crimes.

The Geneva Convention 1949, 1977 govern the conduct of warfare, the
protection of civilians and prisoners of war whilst prohibiting wilful killing,
attacks on civilians, destruction of property, unlawful weapons as well as
designating 33 separate punishable war crimes.

The Genocide Convention 1948 prohibits the adoption of a policy
to destroy members of a national ethnic racial or religious group as such.

The Nuremberg
Principles 1950 introduce
the concept of personal responsibility for the universal offences of a crime
against peace [waging aggressive war], crimes against Humanity, war crimes and
complicity in such crimes.

The Chemical Weapons Convention 1992 prohibits the development
production stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.

The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention1972 prohibits the development production stockpiling and use of
biological and toxic weapons.

The Landmines Convention 1997 prohibits the development production
stockpiling and use of landmines and anti personnel explosives.

The Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 gave the International Criminal Court power to
prosecute genocide, crimes against Humanity and war crimes.

NATO members that have been
participating in air strikes in Libya
include France, Britain, the United
States, Canada,
Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands,
and Italy.

I would like to make formal
charges against the NATO alliance for war crimes committed in Libya.

France, Britain, United
States, Canada,
Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands
and Italy are joint members
of the NATO alliance, and have all broken their UN mandate, and committed a
catalogue of war crimes in Libya.

Because of their influence over the
main stream press in my country (UK), I cannot even give a full and
complete list of their crimes.

But the following crimes are
documented, and I demand that the ICC take appropriate action, and have the
leaders of the NATO alliance charged with these heinous crimes.

13 May 2011: The murder of 11 Muslim
Imams in Brega.

30 April 2011: The bombing of the Downs Syndrome
School in Tripoli

30 April 2011: The bombing of a
Gaddafi residence, murdering Saif Gaddafi, his friend and 3 Gaddafi children.

12 June 2011: The bombing of the
University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established.

22 July 2011: The bombing of the
Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with
their drinking water.

23 July 2011: The bombing of the
factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its
employees.

8th August 2011: The bombing of the
Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 human beings,
many of them children. The bombing of hospitals is against all international
laws, and a most grievous crime.

9 August 2011: The bombing of the
village of Majer, resulting in the murder of 85 civilians. 33 Children, 32
women and 20 men.

The persistent on going bombing of
the civilian population in Zliten and Tripoli, death toll not yet established.
NATO are committing genocide and I DEMAND that the ICC address this matter with
urgency.

David Cameron has admitted that UK
special services have assisted the terrorists on the ground, this is against
the UN mandate which allowed NATO to intervene in Libya, and is a war crime.

Many of the rebels have been
identified as Al Qeada members, NATO working with known terrorists is a war
crime, and against all international laws.

It is also my belief that NATO lied
about their reasons for invading Libya, I demand that the ICC investigate these
lies, and hold the NATO alliance responsible.

I also charge the ICC with working
with NATO to spread propaganda and fear among the Libyan people, namely by
announcing that the NTC had in their custody Saif al Islam Gaddafi and Muhammad
Gaddafi, the night the terrorists (NTC) entered Tripoli. This was lies, and
clearly shows collusion between the TNC terrorists and the ICC.

Libya is not Afghanistan or Iraq,
and NATO will be held accountable for their crimes in Libya.

As this is a matter of great
urgency, I demand that the ICC address these charges immediately, as the
genocide is on going.

I am not a lawyer, and I have no
legal training, but as a citizen of the UK & EU I demand justice. NATO are
acting illegally, UK tax money is financing this travesty, and under EU and
international law the ICC must deal with the charges I have documented, with
the utmost seriousness.

Im sure that there are 1000's of
people like myself, who are horrified at the genocide being commited by NATO in
Libya, and I am sure that most people are like myself, and feel really helpless
about the situation.

This morning I descided to take a
more proactive approach.

I phoned Westminster and asked how I could have David
Cameron charged with war crimes and genocide. They told me to contact my local
conservative office and see if they could help!!!!!

Number for Westminister 020 7219
4272.

I called the foreign Office (020
7219 4272). I was told that all complaints about the actions of NATO in Libya should be
made in writing to the Foreign Office. The lady I spoke to was very
sympathetic, in fact so sympathetic that she admitted she to was horrified by
their actions, still she could not help me, other than the advice to document
and write to the FO. I will be doing this later today.

I phoned my MP, who will call me
back when he gets into his office.

NATO HQ in the Hague Netherlands, do
not have a contact phone number, but I will also be emailing them.

Lastly, I phoned the International
Criminal Court (0031 705 158 515). I was told to document the charges against
NATO, and email it to them. I have done this, and I would urge everyone to also
do it.

If enough of us shout, they have to
hear us, please circulate this note, and PLEASE PLEASE, take the 5 mins to copy
and paste the email, and send it to the ICC.

This is such a small thing to do,
but if thousands of us inundate the ICC with these charges, they will be forced
into a corner, and they will have to act. NATO are acting as if they have
immunity from all international laws, and the reason they get away with so
much, is because we all give off but do nothing! They must be held accountable
for their crimes.

Please feel free to re-edit, correct
grammar or anything else you see fit to do. the following is the email I sent:

When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we
prove crime, I do not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of
international conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that
involves moral as well as legal wrong. And we do not mean conduct that is a
natural and human, even if illegal cutting of corners, such as many of us might
well have committed had we been in the defendants' positions. It is not because
the yielded to the normal frailties of human beings that we accuse them. It is
their abnormal and inhuman conduct which brings them to this bar.

This Tribunal is not the product of abstract speculations
nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the
practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17
more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our
times-aggressive war.

The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop
with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men
who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of
it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched. It is a
cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON

NUREMBERG
PRINCIPLES

On November 21, 1947, one year after the end of the first Nuremberg trial (IMT), the United Nations
passed General Assembly Resolution 177 in order to codify the so-called
"Nuremberg Principles
." The original language reads:177 (II). Formulation of the principles recognized in the Charter
of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal.The General Assembly decides to entrust the formulation of the
principles of international law recognized in the charter of the Nürnberg
Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal to the International Law
Commission, the members of which will, in accordance with resolution 174 (II),
be elected at the next session of the General Assembly, and direct the
Commission to:(a) Formulate the principles of international law recognized in the
Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal and,(b) Prepare a draft code of offences against the peace and security of
mankind, indicating clearly the place to be accorded to the principles
meantioned in sub-paragraph (a) above.

In order to fulfill this mandate, the International Law
Commission (which had been created under UN Resolution 174) duly codified seven
principles, listed below, and adopted them on July 29, 1950.

The "Nuremberg
Principles" are:

Any person who
commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

The fact that
internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a
crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed
the act from responsibility under international law.

The fact that a
person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international
law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law.

The fact that a
person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral
choice was in fact possible to him.

Any person charged
with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the
facts and law.

The crimes
hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:a) Crimes against peaceb) War crimesc) Crimes against humanity

Complicity in the
commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity as set forth in Principle 6 is a crime under international law.

The Geneva Convention 1949, 1977 govern the conduct of warfare, the protection
of civilians and prisoners of war whilst prohibiting wilful killing,
attacks on civilians, destruction of property, unlawful weapons as well as
designating 33 separate punishable war crimes.

The Genocide Convention 1948prohibits the adoption of a
policy to destroy members of a national ethnic racial or religious group as
such.

The Nuremburg Principles 1950 introduce the concept of personal
responsibility for the universal offences of a crime against peace [waging
aggressive war], crimes against Humanity, war crimes and complicity in such
crimes.

Article 21.

(3) The will of the people shall be the
basis of the authority of government.

The
lies that lead to war

How
the Government deceived Parliament, HM forces, the media and

the
public into waging illegal wars with Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya.

“War is essentially an evil thing.Its consequences are not confined to the
belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is
not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime
differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole.”

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
1946

The
method used by British Governments to persuade the nation to wage war is as old
as the hills - lie repeatedly about the illegality of war.The British Government used the same lie to
promote the war with Libya
as it had done for the wars with Afghanistan
and Iraq
- that military action by HM forces is
lawful and authorised by the UN Security Council operating under Chapter VII of
the UN Charter.

On
March 21st 2011, shortly before 559 MPs voted in favour of illegal military action against Libya, the UK Government issued a statement
making the false claim that the deployment of British forces against Libya was
lawful and authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973; their note
declared:

“The Attorney General has been consulted
and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides
a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military
assets to achieve the resolution's objectives”.

This
Government statement, claiming that the armed attack on Libya would be legal, exemplifies
the way in which British politicians, lawyers and civil servants pervert and
break the law.By cross-checking
Government statements against the laws governing the use of force, it can
quickly be established that the wars with Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya are all illegal.

The law of war

The
two main legal documents which govern the use of armed force in international
affairs are the UN Charter and UN General Assembly Resolution 2625.The first lays down the law and the second
explains how to interpret it.

The UN Charter

The
UN Charter is the Statute which lays down the legally binding terms of this
agreement in 111 Articles.Article 2
states the purposes of the United Nations and includes these rules:

2.3All members shall settle their international
disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security
and justice are not endangered.

2.4All members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Chapter
VII of the UN Charter (Articles 39 - 51) contains the rules governing the measures
that the UN Security Council may take to bring about peace and security.Article 41 states:

The Security
Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be
employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the
United Nations to apply such measures…

To
a person with common sense the phrase not involving
the use of armed force means not involving the use of armed force; so why do British Government
lawyers repeatedly claim that the UN Security Council has authorised the use of
armed force when it is clearly forbidden?

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625

In 1970 the United Nations agreed 51 new
definitions of the law governing in UNGA Resolution
2625:

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND

CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

This
Declaration is one of the most important legal documents the world has ever
produced; yet few if any public office holders in Britain
or America
have seen it or read it. It includes these rules:

Every State
has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations.Such a threat or use of force
constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United
Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international
issues.

No State or
group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any
reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.
Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its
political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international
law.

The
principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute
basic principles of international law, and consequently [the UN General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their
international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the
strict observance of these principles.

These laws are crystal clear. The use of force is prohibited.The use of armed force to attack other
nations is a crime.No state or group of
States such as NATO, ISAF[1]
or the EU, may intervene in another State’s affairs and every State must obey,
uphold and enforce these rules.

The crimes associated with waging aggressive war,
laid down in the Nuremburg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, are also clear.If any person, in furtherance of a state policy,
orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is
responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results
in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such
crimes.

So
why do British and NATO politicians, lawyers and civil servants interpret
phrases such as all necessary measures,
humanitarian intervention, and not involving the use of armed force to
mean using weapons of mass destruction such as cruise missiles, rockets,
drones, bombs and radioactive munitions to invade and occupy Afghanistan and
Iraq or to attack Libya?Could the real reason for these heinous
decisions to kill innocent civilians and destroy weaker nations be a
psychopathic lack of conscience and moral values, or is it perhaps because they
know that they control the law enforcement processes and can ensure that they
will never be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for their war crimes, for the
suffering inflicted on their victims or the horrific consequences of their
decisions.

For more than sixty years UK
Government Ministers, officers and lawyers have deceived everyone over the
illegality of war and armed conflict and have got away with it.These massacres of Afghan, Iraqi and Libyan
civilians in which at least 450,000 children have died and more than 1m have
been injured and maimed since 2001 are the worst atrocities in British
history.Why is it then that not one
member of the UK
establishment is willing to call a halt to the killing or speak out against
it?Why is it that those with the power
to stop the wars and enforce the laws repeatedly refuse to do so?

It is time for law abiding
citizens everywhere to take a stand against Britain’s political, civil,
judicial and military leaders and institutions to ensure that the killing is
stopped, the resort to war is ended and those responsible for the deaths of
1.5m civilians are arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.

Chris
CoverdaleThe Peace StrikeAugust 2012

[In his next article Chris
will lay out what individual citizens in NATO countries can do to stop their
Governments from waging illegal wars, murdering civilians, committing crimes
against humanity and corrupting the justice process.]

General Sir
David Richards,

Chief of the Defence
Staff,

Ministry of Defence,

Whitehall,

London SW1A 2HB

23rd
May 2012

Sir,

We recently received legal
advice that the wars with Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya are
illegal because they violate the UN Charter, the Treaty for the Renunciation of
War and the Rome Statute. At the same time
we were told that soldiers have an international legal duty to refuse to carry
out unlawful orders. Lastly we were informed that anyone who took part in
actions in which civilians were killed is criminally liable for arrest and
prosecution for war crimes under the International Criminal Court Act
2001.

This advice, which I
have never seen or heard before, flies in the face of everything I have been
told by commanding officers and politicians about the legality of war and a
soldier’s lawful duty to obey orders.

If this legal advice is
true it has massive implications for everyone in the armed forces.I am
concerned, on behalf of friends and colleagues serving in Afghanistan and others who served in Iraq and Libya, that for decades we have all
been deceived by our political leaders and their legal advisors about the
legality of active service orders.

Would you please confirm
whether or not this legal advice is correct.If it is incorrect please would you explain how our actions in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya accord with (i) the Declaration on Principles of
International Law in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 and (ii) the phrase in
Article 41 of the UN Charter ‘not involving the use of armed force’.

If the advice is correct
please would you (i) reverse the active service orders in Afghanistan (ii)
recall the armed forces to the UK and (iii) confirm whether or not soldiers who
have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and caused the deaths of
civilians are liable for arrest and prosecution under sections 51 and 52 of the
International Criminal Court Act 2001.

Yours sincerely

Why
I will not fight for Queen and country by ex-SAS soldier Ben Griffin

“ The
Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied
that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a
clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military
assets to achieve the resolution's objectives.”

This
claim, by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, that the attack on Libya
was lawful was as false as the claims of legality made by Tony Blair and Lord
Goldsmith when justifying the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq and their 1.5m
civilian deaths.The truth is that war
is never legal, the UN Security Council is prohibited from using force and
killing civilians is always a war crime.

“The solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy
necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international
law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and
terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing…[1]

The Security Council may decide what
measures not involving the use of armed
force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …

In 1970, concerned by repeated violations of the UN
Charter, the UN General Assembly adopted the recommendations of the
International Law Commission and agreed 51 new rules[2] to ensure that every Member State would understand
and obey the law against waging war.

Every State has the duty to refrain in its
international relations from the threat or use of force…Such a threat or use of force constitutes a
violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of
settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to
intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or
external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted
threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic
and cultural elements are in violation
of international law.

These rules are crystal clear. The use of force is
prohibited; the use of armed force to attack other States is a crime; no State
or group of States, such as NATO, ISAF[3]
or the EU, may intervene in another State’s affairs and every State must obey,
uphold and enforce these rules.So why
do Britain’s leaders and Governments repeatedly ignore these rules and break
the law?

War is essentially an
evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone,
but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not
only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated
evil of the whole.”Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

Most taxpayers know that
evading tax is a crime, but how many of us know that paying tax can also be a
crime? Chris Coverdale a lawyer and tax resister explains.

When David Cameron took the
comedian Jimmy Carr to task last summer for tax avoidance and persuaded him to
pay income tax to the British Government, he inadvertently involved him in the
worst crimes known to mankind – genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes.

Under the domestic and
international laws of war[2]
citizens are forbidden from taking part in war on the side of the aggressor and
are legally bound to disobey the orders of any Government that takes part in an
illegal war or supports acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes.This duty to refuse to obey
unlawful Government orders includes orders to pay tax.If a government uses funds raised by taxation
to wage illegal war or to commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or
war crimes, then a taxpayer’s normal duty to pay tax is reversed and becomes a
duty to refuse to pay tax.

“ The very essence
of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend
the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain
immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State
in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”

Nuremburg War
Crimes Tribunal 1946

War is never lawful; it was
outlawed in 1928 when 63 nations ratified the General Treaty for the
Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact). This treaty, which formed the legal
basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, is still in force.The only occasion when the use of armed force
is lawful occurs when a State is under attack and it acts in self-defence to
repel the attackers.On all other
occasions the use of armed force is illegal.

“War between nations was renounced by the
signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty.This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world an
illegal thing.Hereafter, when nations
engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators
of this general treaty law.... We denounce them as law breakers."

Henry
Stimson, USA
Secretary of State 1932

Wilful killing during warfare
is always a crime. If a person is killed as a consequence of a planned military
action then the death is unlawful and the perpetrators can be charged with a
war crime, a crime against humanity, genocide, murder or conspiracy to commit
such crimes.

WHEN
WAR IS ILLEGAL PAYING TAX IS A WAR CRIME

Under the laws of war each of
the wars fought since 2001 against Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya is
illegal.Not only do they violate the
Treaty for the Renunciation of War and the UN Charter, but by killing 1.5m
civilians the leaders and taxpayers of every State involved in these wars committed
murder, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Under the common law doctrine
of joint enterprise or Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court every citizen of a NATO or ISAF State who has paid tax since
October 2001 is technically an accessory to the crimes committed by their Government,
and is criminally liable for arrest, prosecution and punishment for complicity
in war crimes.

The fact, that taxpayers can
be arrested, tried, convicted and punished as war criminals alongside the
civil, political and military leaders responsible for starting the wars may
come as an unwelcome surprise to those who are not familiar with the laws of
war.But it should be no surprise to
anyone who has experienced or even considered the horrific consequences of
war.Starting a war, in which tens of
thousands of totally innocent men women and children are injured and killed is
the world’s most evil act; so supporting a war by providing the funds that
purchase the weapons and pay the troops ranks alongside it as a monstrous
crime.

The legislation however
provides relief[3]
for taxpayers who have unwittingly supported illegal wars.Providing they end their participation in the
crimes and refuse to pay any further taxes to their government or its agents until
the wars and the crimes have ended, they will not be punished for aiding and
abetting the crimes.

To make sure that you cannot
be prosecuted, ask you employer to pay your PAYE and NI payments into a trust
account to be withheld from the Government until it abides by the laws of
war.By paying taxes into a trust or
escrow account you fulfil your national duty to pay tax as well as your
international duty to withhold tax.However if you or your employer continue to pay tax to the government
after you know that it is a criminal offence, you are liable for arrest and
prosecution as an accessory to murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity or
genocide[4].

By joining together in international
tax resistance taxpayers can force our Governments and leaders to stop their
illegal wars and end the indiscriminate killing of civilians.So it is now down to us to end the
carnage.Each of us has a choice; we can
stop the wars and end the killing by withholding tax, or support the wars and
continue the killing by paying tax.

“War is
essentially an evil thing.Its
consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the
whole world.To initiate a war of
aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains
within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Nuremburg
War Crimes Tribunal 1946

NOW TIME TO START STOPPING
By way of design weapons of war are responsible for war crimes, it there
follows that those responsible for making them are war criminals.
The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremberg
Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court
are clear.
“If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to
attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person
and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences,
breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people,
commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.
Nuremberg
principles http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390
Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act
which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or
responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under
international law.”
Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to
order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact
possible to him.
With immediate affect arrest of all of those whose unlawful actions have
directly resulted in, genocide, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes
against humanity, abuse of Human and Civil rights and ecocide.
This is not a political issue, it is one of law.http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlArticle 21.(3)

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

[3] Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court.

[4]S. 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act
2001 or S.1, 2, and 3 The International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act
2001

Calling on all who are of
conscience to enforce the law.

Murder is always a crime, and the
murder of children is the most heinous of crimes. There comes a time when women
and men must align themselves to correct action and moral fortitude and
persistence for truth & justice.

The message is to stop
violence not to promote it.

There has been much deliberation with UK
police regarding the law and UK
war criminals. International laws and treaties have been quoted, but to
date have failed to be recognised by the UK police. Here is the law as set down in the UKThe offences against Person Act 1861 (4) "Whosoever shall
solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavor to persuade, or shall propose to any
person, to murder any other person, whether he( or she) be a subject
of Her Majesty or not, and whether he (she) be within the Queens dominions or
not, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable
to imprisonment for life".

The guilty; Vote count by MP’s of
the UK government participation in the air strikes on Libya; 557 MPs rallied
behind David Cameron's new military adventure, while only 15 MPs opposed it
(13 votes against, plus 2 'tellers').These MP’s who voted in favor of air strikes in Libya, knew full well
that they would result in the deaths of children, women and men. This was and
still is murder. A list of MP’s who voted in favour of air strikes on Libya is
available to police on request.Murder or manslaughter abroad.
(9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land
out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and
whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence
committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether
the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, may be dealt
with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in England or Ireland. Provided,
that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any
place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of
England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried
before the passing of this Act.

Elements of Arrest under section 24 PACEA lawful arrest requires two elements:
1. A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement
in the commission of a criminal offence;
AND
2. Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary. Under International Lawhttp://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htmThe Rome
statute of the International criminal court 1998; Article 27, (1)This
statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on
official capacity. In particular, official capacity as head of state or
government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative
or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal
responsibility under this statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a
ground for reduction of sentence. (2) Immunities or special procedural rules
which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national
or international law, shall not bar the court from exercising its jurisdiction
over such a person.By Oath in the office of constable,
with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental
human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the
best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all
offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said
office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties
thereof faithfully according to law. Please take note that this is not a
political issue but one of law.

If you are a Policeman, judge or any other law
enforcement officer or officialyou are
advised to take action, you are also advisedto pay particular notice and attentionto the following;

Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted
pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact
possible to him.”http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390

If
you are a Head of State or responsible government you would are also advised to
take particular notice of;Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who
committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as
Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law.”

Article 21.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government..
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as
a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights
should be protected by the rule of law, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all
nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping
this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition
and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among
the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The
crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremburg
Principles and the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, are also clear. If any
person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack
members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and
everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences,
breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people,
commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes.

If you are not a
policeman or a judgethen contact crime stoppers on line